Prior Inconsistent Statements: Cases That Should Have Gone to the Supreme Court of Canada, But Didn’t!

Welcome to Cases That Should Have Gone to the Supreme Court of Canada, But Didn’t! This week, lawyer Kyla Lee discusses prior inconsistent statements.

Acumen Law Corporation lawyer Kyla Lee gives her take on a made-in-Canada court case each week and discusses why these cases should have been heard by Canada’s highest court: the Supreme Court of Canada.


Denzel Palmer-Coke was charged with sexual assault. One of the central issues that came up at his trial was an issue of credibility. Although he made a number of admissions that ultimately meant the credibility of the complainant wasn’t going to be tested in the case, his credibility was what was on trial in that case.

Mr. Palmer-Coke was impugned by the court on the basis of a lie that he made to the police at the time of giving a statement. The court essentially relied on a rule that if you give a prior inconsistent statement, that will negatively impact your ability to be believed later on.

The problem is that the rule of prior inconsistent statements really lacks context.

This is the exact type of case that the Supreme Court of Canada is supposed to get into. How do you resolve inconsistent judgements or inconsistent evidentiary rules?

Watch the video for more.

Scroll to Top
CALL ME NOW